Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Monday, December 30, 2013

To help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, the once-great New York Times has published a dubious report swallowing the Obama administration’s lies about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the agenda-setting newspaper of record concluded over the weekend that the once-obscure “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video sparked the armed assault that left four Americans dead at the height of last year’s presidential election cycle. The newspaper also concluded that al-Qaeda wasn’t involved, ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting al-Qaeda was involved.

Months of investigation byThe New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Evidently the Old Gray Lady didn’t look too hard for the truth.

From the outset the Obama administration said that what happened in Benghazi was a spontaneous riot identical to what had taken place in Cairo, Egypt, a short time before.

The administration claimed that the Benghazi violence was a spontaneous protest that somehow got out of hand. The official line was that a demonstration outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi grew increasingly violent and that protesters unconnected to terrorist groups eventually stormed the facility.

Not long after the attack National Security Adviser Susan Rice told Fox’s Chris Wallace that,

the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

Weeks later the Obama administration changed its tune, admitting as more and more evidence accumulated that terrorist groups were involved in planning and carrying out the attack.

After Rice’s TV appearance, the State Department said that there were no protests whatsoever outside the consulate before the attack. The tale that Rice told of “mobs” and “protests” spiraling out of control was an utter fabrication. It was a bald-faced lie told with a straight face to the American people on national TV.

Why would the administration go on with this charade? Mostly likely to downplay the threat of Islamic jihad during Obama’s reelection campaign. President Obama had gone to great lengths to declare that al-Qaeda was in decline thanks to his efforts. It is clear that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and planned, though the exact details of for how long and by whom remain a bit fuzzy.

Like radical leftist fabulist Oliver Stone laboring to create his crazy-quilt alternative myth explaining the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the New York Times is attempting to rewrite the narrative about what really happened in Benghazi and afterwards. It is trying to resurrect the Obama administration’s original line of argument in order to create wiggle room for Hillary Clinton who has been scathingly criticized by Republican lawmakers and the occasional Democrat for bungling the Benghazi saga.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi saga, was not impressed, saying a proper congressional investigation is urgently needed to clear the air.

“This is why I introduced my discharge petition to force a full investigation into the Benghazi attacks with full subpoena power,” Stockman, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FrontPage. ”So far we have had only partial, limited investigations. I hope Speaker Boehner will immediately bring my petition to the floor so justice can be served.”

Stockman’s discharge petition, House Resolution 306, would establish “a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” Boehner has been blocking Stockman’s request for months.

Amidst White House stonewalling, intimidation of witnesses, and Republican gutlessness, little has been done to move the ball forward in the investigation surrounding the deaths on Sept. 11, 2012, of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at U.S. facilities in eastern Libya.

But on “Fox News Sunday,” House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), rejected the New York Times story. “I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” he said, adding several times that the article was “not accurate.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also on the show, also rejected the newspaper report, saying “intelligence indicates al-Qaeda was involved.”

On Saturday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News the contention in the NYTarticle that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah — not al-Qaeda — led the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, was an exercise in semantics.

“It’s misleading,” said King, given that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. “It’s a distinction without a difference.”

The New York Times article, allegedly the work product of a team of researchers, also contradicts the testimony of Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was murdered during the attack. Hicks said the “Innocence of Muslims” video, which portrayed the Islamic prophet Mohammed in an unflattering manner, was “a non-event in Libya” at that time and didn’t precipitate the Benghazi attack.

As previously noted, the obvious goal of this breathtakingly dishonest move is to insulate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from criticism for her role in the affair. It is no understatement to suggest that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy aimed at maintaining the political viability of the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” as a red herring to explain away the problems of her corrupt, lawbreaking husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

The Left’s coverup of the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Benghazi saga began as soon as the attack got underway a little over 15 months ago. A coordinated effort to deflect blame from President Obama, at that time involved in a competitive reelection fight, was directed by the White House with the assistance of dupes in the media.

Even the hapless Candy Crowley got involved in defending Obama when during a televised presidential debate she slapped down GOP candidate Mitt Romney for correctly stating that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama got more support from the left-wing media and the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, which went on to publish a book titled The Benghazi Hoax, by Media Matters founder and confessed liar David Brock, in order to provide progressive dupes with talking points to regurgitate.

The New York Times story comes as Democrats grow increasingly nervous about an electoral wipeout in the congressional elections in November 2014. Evidence of Democrat jitters abounds. Republicans lead Democrats in the generic congressional ballot by 5 percentage points as public disapproval of President Obama and Obamacare continue to rise.

The Obama White House is preparing to flood the airwaves with pro-Affordable Care Act propaganda showing alleged Obamacare success stories. Over the weekend the Democratic National Committee sent out a mass email to Obama supporters warning that Republicans are preparing to impeach the 44th president. The email referred to the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.” Actually, only a handful of Republican lawmakers would like to move forward with impeachment proceedings. Members of the GOP leadership are terrified of taking action out of a paralyzing fear of being tarred as bigots by left-wingers who characterize virtually all criticism of Obama as motivated by racial antagonism.

The Left will do whatever it takes to decouple Hillary Clinton in the public mind from the fiasco in Benghazi. Expect many more blatant media attempts to rehabilitate her stained legacy as Secretary of State to come.

Fifteen months after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, the narrative of the attack continues to be shaped, and reshaped, by politicians and the press.

But a New York Times report published over the weekend has angered sources who were on the ground that night. Those sources, who continue to face threats of losing their jobs, sharply challenged the Times’ findings that there was no involvement from Al Qaeda or any other international terror group and that an anti-Islam film played a role in inciting the initial wave of attacks.

“It was a coordinated attack. It is completely false to say anything else. … It is completely a lie,” one witness to the attack told Fox News.

Sean Smith, a foreign service officer, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were also killed in the 2012 assault.

The controversial Times report has stirred a community that normally remains out of sight and wrestles with how to reveal the truth, without revealing classified information.

Fox News has learned that the attack on the consulate started with fighters assembling to conduct an assault.

"Guys were coming into the compound, moving left, moving right…and using IMT (individual movement techniques). … That’s not a spontaneous attack,” one special operator said.

"One guy was shooting, one guy was running. There are guys watching the gates. … The bosses on the ground were pointing, commanding and coordinating -- that is a direct action planned attack."

The community of operators in Libya that night and since includes the CIA, FBI, U.S. military, U.S. State Department and contractors working for the United States in a number of capacities. According to multiple sources on the ground that night, all the intelligence personnel in Benghazi before the attack and there now understand Al Qaeda is a significant threat in Libya.
Recent reports also suggest that Libyan militia leader Ahmad Abu Khattallah is the mastermind of the attack and had no real connections to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.

Multiple sources, though, challenged that claim. They insist that while Khattallah was found responsible for the actions at the actual consulate and was essentially the ground force commander that night, he is also clearly tied to Ansar al-Sharia and to the broader terrorist network.

“There is direct evidence linking him before the attack and after the attack to terrorist groups. An opportunity came, and Khattallah conducted an assault on the consulate. To say that it wasn’t tied to Al Qaeda is completely false. There is literal evidence in many forms and shapes, directly linking him,” one source said.

Khattallah is also a member of the militia group the Libyan Shield, which was formed to protect Benghazi and is operating separate from Tripoli.
Other militias are not inclined to turn Khattallah in, because they are also tied to Ansar al-Sharia. Commanders from some of these militias thought to be friendly to the United States and who have worked with American special forces, the CIA and State Department personnel have flipped sides and affiliated with Ansar al-Sharia. Sources say the terrorist group is saturating the whole region of eastern Libya with money, training and personnel. "They are now the biggest organization in town,” one said.
Sources also tell Fox News that while Khattallah is responsible for the ground actions that night, he also reports to other commanders in Ansar al-Sharia. He is seen as a relatively small piece of the terror puzzle in the region, which includes Al Qaeda ambassadors. Some in the intelligence community call these terrorist ambassadors “Amirs,” and there has been one stationed in Libya for some time, as they are the liaison for intelligence and direction for operations. Libyan Shield, which has different offshoots in different locations, also has members directly affiliated with terrorist organizations and Al Qaeda. Bomb-making materials have been found with some of these groups as well.

Fox News has also learned there was a week of briefings by the head of counterintelligence in the entire region that identified Al Qaeda as the largest and most significant element infiltrating Libya, with the final briefing on Sept. 10

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Within the Obama administration, a record of failure is a sure indicator of future advancement. Aside from his own countless scandals and missteps, Obama continually surrounds himself with proven losers.

One such disappointment is Jake Sullivan, who once served as Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. He is most notorious for his leading role in perpetuating the myth that a YouTube video acted as the catalyst behind last year’s deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sullivan provided talking points to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and other administration flacks, encouraging them to spread obvious lies in an effort to downplay anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Along with Rice, Sullivan was also promoted by the Obama administration after taking the heat for this particular scandal.

Apparently not satisfied that America’s credibility had been sufficiently destroyed, Sullivan was recently identified as one of the primary forces behind a much-maligned nuclear weapons deal between the U.S. and Iran.

In July 2012, he was reportedly present during one of the administration’s first meeting with Iranian leaders. Since then, official sources indicate he has been a key player in developing a plan that many see as insufficient at best and actively dangerous at worst.

The Associated Press cited numerous sources imbedded in the White House who confirmed Sullivan engaged in clandestine meetings in Iran on at least five occasions.

Though the first of these meetings took place before the Benghazi attack, Sullivan remained an active participant in the Iran deal well after his role in spreading false information was revealed. Had his willful negligence been addressed with a swift and unceremonious termination, he would have been unable to act in any meaningful capacity during the disastrous deal negotiations.

Monday, December 23, 2013

DES MOINES -- To suggest that Hillary Clinton would be tough to beat in a
2016 Democratic primary is a vast understatement.

The early polls tell the tale.

Nationally, Clinton’s lead over Vice President Joe Biden -- her closest
competitor in a hypothetical Democratic field -- is a gaudy 55.8 percentage
points in the RealClearPolitics
average of polls.
And in the early voting states, Clinton’s advantage appears to be just as
formidable.
In Iowa, a Des
Moines Register poll released last week found that the former first lady,
U.S. senator and secretary of state had an 89 percent favorability rating (vs. 7
percent unfavorable) among statewide Democrats.
Indeed, all of the evidence points to Clinton entering the race, if she
chooses to run, as a much stronger frontrunner than she was in 2008.

But in the nation’s first voting state, she will have to avoid some
well-concealed tripwires. Conversations with Democratic officials and
progressive activists here last week revealed that while just about all of them
hope and expect Clinton will take another shot at the White House, they are just
as eager to explore whatever other options reveal themselves.

“There’s going to be a lot of excitement for Hillary, and she had a lot of
supporters here in 2008, but there’s also the excitement of something new,” said
Iowa Democratic activist Nate Boulton. He echoed other Democrats interviewed for
this article when he said he’d hate to see any candidate get a “free pass” in
the 2016 caucuses: “As Democrats, we’re not a party of supporting the person who
ran last time this time. It’s always about what’s next.”

Boulton spoke to RealClearPolitics at a Progress Iowa event Wednesday night
in Altoona, which was keynoted by former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- a
potential 2016 presidential aspirant -- who used his visit here to take some
attention-grabbing and thinly
veiled shots at Clinton for her 2002 Senate vote to authorize the use of
force in Iraq.

Before the event, Schweitzer spent about 10 minutes chatting amiably with
Boulton and Andrew Mertens, the communications director for the Iowa Association
for Justice, a left-leaning legal advocacy group.

“The buzz of any potential candidate coming into town is exciting,” Mertens
said. “It’s such an important process that I think it’s entirely welcomed.”
While the 2016 Democratic campaign has gotten off to a slower start here than
on the Republican side, Schweitzer wasn’t the first member of his party with
possible aspirations to travel to Iowa this year.

In August, Minnesota’s senior senator, Amy Klobuchar, made the short trip
across her home state’s southern border to speak
at a fundraiser for the North Iowa Democrats. At the time, the ambitious
lawmaker downplayed the obvious implications of that political sojourn.

But according to two Democratic sources, the day after her visit, Klobuchar
followed up with phone calls to prominent state politicos and queried them in a
manner that suggested her seriousness about exploring a run.

“Obviously, she’ll be younger” than Clinton, one Iowa Democrat said when
asked how Klobuchar might mount a credible campaign here against the runaway
frontrunner. “She’d have to quietly say, ‘I don’t carry the baggage that
[Clinton] does. I share your values.’”

Iowa has the dubious distinction of being one of just two states that have
never elected a female governor or sent a woman to Congress. This surprising
history and Clinton’s painfully underwhelming third-place finish in the 2008
caucuses are two of the factors that lead some political insiders here to wonder
whether Clinton’s Iowa chances are less overwhelming than they appear.
James Strohman, who teaches political science at Iowa State University,
penned an
article in November laying out the case for how she could stumble:

“Despite the national party network promoting her as the heir to the
Democratic throne, there is very little, if any, Clinton organization in Iowa,
and she has done almost nothing to connect with Iowa Democrats in an effort to
build one. Does she really want to slosh through barnyards and backyard
barbeques trolling for votes? Can she shift from globetrotting [to] world
meetings in 112 countries [and] to high-paying speaking engagements in the
corporate arena, to sitting in a church basement in Winnebago County begging
support from farmers, schoolteachers and welfare workers?”
If Clinton decides she’s willing to do just that, the evidence remains
compelling that she will be rewarded for those efforts. A poll conducted in Iowa
earlier this year by EMILY’s List for its Madam President Project -- a national
effort to help send a female Democrat to the White House -- is chock-full of
positive news for Clinton. The survey found that 95 percent of likely Democratic
caucus-goers think the country is ready for its first female president and 85
percent believe that the next commander-in-chief will be a woman.

And the group’s particular focus on Clinton was evident at a Des Moines event
it held in her honor in August.

But EMILY’s List spokesperson Marcy Stech emphasized that there is a backup
plan:“If Hillary decides not to run, no one knows what will happen, but
there are many other qualified women that would be ready to serve as president
from day one. Women like Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. [Kirsten] Gillibrand and Sen.
[Elizabeth] Warren should be part of 2016 conversations every bit as much as the
Bidens, O’Malleys and Cuomos of the pack are.”

Though Warren has ruled out the possibility of running in 2016 and Gillibrand
has not taken steps suggesting any interest, Klobuchar appears poised to start
generating more attention if she returns to Iowa in the coming months.

Jerry Crawford, who was Bill Clinton’s state director here in 1992 and 1996
and served as Hillary Clinton’s Midwestern co-chair in 2008, explained why it
will be relatively easy for other prospective contenders to garner some interest
in Iowa, despite the early enthusiasm for the frontrunner-in-waiting.

“Regardless of whether you’re talking about the Democratic or Republican
side, I think voters in Iowa and New Hampshire love the sport of politics,” he
said. “It’s part of the fabric of life in both those places. It’s why they’re so
good at it -- because it’s such an ingrained part of their
life.”

After the Obama administration pushed the phrase “phony scandal” to describe the various mishaps this year, the National Security Advisor Susan Rice rounded out 2013 proclaiming the Benghazi talking points fiasco a “false controversy.”

In an interview Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Rice was defiant when asked about her claims on five Sunday morning news programs that the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound that killed four Americans, including then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens on Sept. 11, 2012 was a response to an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

I don’t have time to think about a false controversy,” Rice said. “In the midst of all of the swirl about things like talking points, the administration has been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That’s what we ought to be focused on.”

She had just gone through an incredibly painful and stressful week,” Rice said. “Secretary Clinton, as our chief diplomat, had to reach out to the families, had to greet the bodies upon their arrival at Andrews Air Force Base. If I were her, the last thing I would have wanted to do is five Sunday morning talk shows.”

During the report, Stahl said the National Security Advisor position was a consolation prize because President Obama was likely to nominate her to be the new secretary of State, instead of John Kerry.

Stahl asked, “Do you ever think, ‘Gee, I wish I hadn’t done that.’? You know, if you hadn’t done that, I’d be calling you Madam Secretary of State maybe.”

Rice just said, “Well, you can call me Sus

On another topic, Rice reiterated the administration’s defense of the National Security Agency data mining program, while rejecting amnesty for government contractor-turned fugitive leaker Edward Snowden.

It's been worth what we’ve done to protect the United States,” Rice said. “And the fact that we have not had a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11 should not be diminished. But that does not mean that everything we’re doing as of the present ought to be done the same way in the future

Saturday, December 21, 2013

If you walk along the quaint, cobblestoned streets of Georgetown, in
Washington, D.C., you can see ads for newly renovated townhomes “starting at
$3.945 million.” That’s not surprising for this famously liberal enclave.
Something else jumps at you, the number of bumper stickers on Mercedes and Audi
automobiles that say: “I’m ready for Hillary.” These are surely head-scratchers.
Are they simply folks who backed the former Sec. of State in `08 who defiantly
maintained their allegiance? Or, are they among the glitterati like Barbara
Walters, who are crestfallen at President Obama’s failure to be their new
“messiah.”

If the latter, then it’s an extraordinary thing to see liberal political
activists confessing to dissatisfaction with the most leftwing president in U.S.
history. And so early in his second term, too. After all, Mr. Obama has
delivered on the promises that Bill Clinton failed to keep. The health care
takeover is called ObamaCare, not HillaryCare. And from the war on coal, to
promoting abortion worldwide, to repealing the ban on recruiting homosexuals for
the military, to withdrawal from Iraq, it is Barack Obama who has achieved the
liberal wish list. Washington Post columnist Jennifer
Rubin’s “Right Turn” column cites the top ten disasters that
conservatives attribute to Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State. It is a
thoroughgoing indictment of what Rubin calls a legacy of mismanagement.
Still, voters in primaries on the Democratic side of the aisle are unlikely
to be much moved by what conservatives think of the Hillary Clinton record.
Although there is increasing division in the country, we have seen conservatives
and liberals come together in Congress and elsewhere on some issues of foreign
policy. For example, there was little enthusiasm on any side for a further
entanglement in Syria’s ongoing civil war.
Hillary Clinton has to worry much more about her record as U.S. Senator from
New York. This is the record that was so
devastatingly detailed in 2007 by New York Times writers Jeff Gerth
and Don Van Natta, Jr. This is a long, analytical piece that outlines Sen.
Clinton’s many dodges and weaves during the run-up to the Iraq war. She was for
it before she was against it. But her efforts to play the hawk and the dove are
a surprising echo of her husband’s own record in the White House. Bill Clinton
is on record onboth sides of the first Gulf War.
This article, appearing half a year before the Iowa Caucuses of 2008, can
give us a strong indication why Sen. Barack Obama bested Sen. Clinton in that
first match-up for liberal activists. And it shows why many of the party’s most
committed rejected her as a standard-bearer that year.

“Hillary’s War,” the
Gerth-Van Natta article, is readily accessible to anyone who can google it with
“New York Times.”

At this festive time of year, we are reminded of Charles Dickens’ famous
Christmas Carol. And the Hollywood version of the classic George C.
Scott Scrooge gives us a scene worthy of remembering. Many a child had
nightmares after watching the entrance of Marley’s Ghost into Ebenezer Scrooge’s
bedchamber.

Conservatives need to remember that it is not conservatives who dominate the
primaries and caucuses that select the next Democratic nominee. And for all the
hoopla about being “Ready for Hillary,” she will have to defend not just her
record as Barack Obama’s Sec. of State, but her “long and winding road” on the
Iraq war. It shows a wily but unprincipled character, eager to get on the right
side of the polls. For the invasion when seeming tough is the order of the day.
Against the occupation when Iraq’s endless sectarian strife makes Operation
Iraqi Freedom a bitter joke.

Her record will follow her around, just like those chains and cashboxes that
Jacob Marley’s Ghost had to drag with him into Scrooge’s dark and freezing
bedchamber. That record should provide plenty of fodder in a general election
match-up to any careful analysis.

But it will be most interesting to how enterprising young liberals take on
the supposedly invincible former Secretary of State. Her entire record will be
laid out in detail. Surely, Barack Obama is not the only intelligent leader on
the left who sees a weakness to be exploited. Many of those liberal

activists—the ones who actually decide these things-- will conclude that at 3
a.m., they want someone else to answer that red telephone in the White House.
And Hillary may yet find out that her record—the entirety of it--makes a
great deal of difference.

Now, reports from Egypt are connecting then Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton to domestic terrorism that took place in Egypt under the Muslim
Brotherhood. In an interview with Turkey’s Anatolia news agency, Naglaa
Mahmoud, the wife of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, she admitted
her role in the nation’s violence. She told them that she actively worked to
help excite domestic insurrections to overthrown Abdel Fatah Al Sisi, the new
Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt. Perhaps the most internationally explosive part
of her interview was when she said that her actions were in collaboration with
Hillary Clinton.

Former Muslim Brotherhood activist turned Christian, Walid
Shoebat translated part of the interview with Mahmoud. What she said should
shock you and should be enough to dash any 2016 presidential hopes of Hillary
Clinton, but you know that the liberal mainstream media will keep this buried
just as they have buried the news about the charges filed against Obama:

Qaffas: According to Anatolia Press, Mahmoud said, “I
have between my fingers, a treasure trove of secrets from the White House and
Mrs. Clinton fears my wrath.”She said, “I will not speak about Huma
Abedin”. When asked if she had a close relationship with Hillary Clinton,
Mahmoud said, “When my husband returns from his kidnapping, the one who led the
coup will pay a hefty price.” Of Mrs. Clinton, she said, “We have a long
friendship of many years. We lived in the U.S. and my children learned
there. This friendship increased further when my husband became the legitimate
president of the country.”Mahmoud went on to say that they were recruited by the Clintons from
the U.S. and began their friendship in the 1980′s. This appears to be a
conspiracy that is being hidden.When asked if they still have friendships with each other, Mahmoud said
communications never ceased and that the conversations are all recorded. The
wife of Mursi divulged that Mrs. Clinton seeks the assistance – both official
and unofficial – of several members of the Muslim Sisterhood organization to
help with problems in the Middle East. “We also have routine business
dealings with the Clintons.”Mahmoud further stated that “Hillary depends on us tremendously to help
her succeed in the coming presidential elections, just as we helped Barack Obama
win twice.” She is quite the looney bin to believe she helped Obama win.When asked about her relationship with Michelle Obama, Mahmoud said it is
very good but it never developed to the point of close friendship, like with
Hillary.On the ability of women to take the lead in the revolution, Mahmoud said
that could indeed happen with the Sisterhood. “I have many wives of Brotherhood
leaders with me. Many of their husbands were kidnapped and jailed too. I tell
them to be patient, for you will have a great reward in the future. I tell them
that if their husbands are martyred, we will see to it that they are married off
to other men as soon as their menstrual period is over,” she said.

According to Mahmoud, the police will not touch the women, which is why
the women are so effective.On her concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could be identified as a
terrorist organization, the wife of the former President said she was not and
declared that she and her colleagues are in the process of organizing a “coup
against the coup”.“We are under the condition of war and Jihad,” she said, “and we have a
good command of the necessities of war, the ancient and the modern. I will keep
the tactics of war secret because in Islam, war is trickery.”She said her conscience will not be eased until all of the traitors are
hanged in the gallows.

Mahmoud’s confessions in the interview have led Hisham Barakat, Egypt’s
Attorney General to file a complaint against her demanding her arrest. He has
also launched an investigation into the wives of other members of the Muslim
Brotherhood and into the relationship Mahmoud had with the Clintons. If you
want to read a statement about the complaint filed against Mahmoud and
connection to Hillary, click
here.

Reading the transcript above yields further proof of the claim that I’ve been
making for several years that Clinton was involved with the Muslim Sisterhood as
well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Don’t forget that Hillary’s top aide and
closest confidant was Huma
Abedin, whose mother is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.

We have seen the video that was made during a cabinet meeting of Morsi’s
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government that revealed that they consider the US
an enemy with Israel that needs to be destroyed. I’ve contended all along that
Barack Obama should face charges of treason here in the US for aiding and
abetting our known enemies as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the US
Constitution. Now we have proof that Hillary Clinton is equally as guilty of
treason and should also be tried for her crimes.

More importantly, this information needs to get out to the American public so
it can stop Hillary’s 2016 presidential bid dead in its tracks. Instead of
moving into the White House in January 2017, Hillary should be moving into a
prison cell next to Obama’s as they spend the rest of their lives behind bars
for committing treason against the United States.

According to Barbara Walters and the liberals at ABC News -- Hillary Clinton is the most fascinating Person of 2013.

Disgusting!

Have they forgotten about the 4 dead Americans in Benghazi?

Have they forgotten how our Ambassador came under attack from an Al Qaeda-led mob of terrorists, while Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration shamefully chose to abandon them -- leaving them to die?

And have they forgotten how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actively trying to cover-up the crimes of Benghazi?

With your help, Stop Hillary PAC is fighting back. We are going to create a firestorm with thousands, if not millions, Protest Petitions to let Barbara Walters and ABC News know exactly how disgusted the American people are about their choice.

You see, Stop Hillary PAC was created for this very purpose -- to fight back against Hillary and her cheerleaders in the liberal media, and to ensure she never becomes president of the United States.

Your Protest Petition, along with thousands more, will be delivered directly to Barbara Walters and ABC News demanding to know exactly what they were thinking naming Hillary Clinton person of the year for 2013.

Your Protest Petition will register your disgust with their shameful and disgusting decision, while reminding them of the dead Americans in Benghazi that surely don't think Hillary Clinton is "fascinating."

And finally, we will register your disgust by ensuring we get a response from ABC News. We won't rest until we hear back.

One last thing: In order for us to make the maximum impact we need to deliver hundreds-of-thousands of Protest Petitions, if not millions. That's where your continued support comes in.

So after you sign your Protest Petition, will you help us have maximum impact and reach our goal by making a special, end of the year contribution to Stop Hillary PAC?

(CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton says if U.S.
lawmakers realized the economic impact of having the country’s population growth
coming to a halt, it would energize immigration reform, “because it’s the only
way to keep our country growing.”

Clinton made the comments while discussing immigration reform earlier this
month on the America with Jorge Ramos program.

“I think that we're trying to pass immigration reform. The country needs it.
If – I wish that all these members of Congress who oppose immigration reform,
and who feel threatened by it, had been with me on my recent trip to Asia,”
Clinton said.

“And they – and Japan and China where they're worried about the population
growth just coming to a halt. And what it's going to do to them economically,”
Clinton continued. “And I think it would give a lot more energy to immigration
reform in America. The – we're going to have to do it, because it's the only way
to keep our country growing. And the sooner we do it, the better.”

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Not only were “stand down” orders given on the night of the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack, they were given in multiple locations, sources on the ground that night tell Fox News. Further, closed-door testimony given by CIA staff and various contractors “appears to bolster claims that more could have been done by U.S. personnel to respond.

Despite some media reports claiming that there were no stand down orders given on Sept. 11, 2012, sources who were there are telling quite a different story.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said there “clearly were stand down orders given to people not only in Benghazi, but also in Tripoli and the State Department’s counterterrorism team.”

“Eight men, either CIA staff or contractors, have now testified before the House Intelligence Committee about the night last year when four Americans were killed in Benghazi, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens,” FoxNews.com reports.

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) also challenged the Obama administration’s assertion that there wasn’t enough time to respond to the attack.

“OK, fine. But how did you know when it was going to end? Even if it was at the 11th hour, so to speak, why wasn’t help on the way?” he said.

Transcripts of the Benghazi witness testimony is classified. It is now up to lawmakers with access to the testimony to piece together exactly what happened. Some committee members also want more information, including phone records.

“The good news is we have the transcripts. We’ll sit down, go over all the transcripts and we’ll fill-in all the gaps. That’s why this part of it was so important,” Rep. Mike rogers (R-Mich.) said.

Hillary Clinton has had a pretty rotten year considering where she began. In
late January, a softball interview on CBS and gushing praise from President
Obama for her tenure as Secretary of State suggested she might begin measuring
the Oval Office drapes. Sure, there was that “What difference does it make?”
moment a few days earlier, but liberals convinced themselves it was fine to
brush off an inquiry about the rationale of the killers of four Americans and to
skip over her series of misleading statements. Everything was fine, perfectly
fine. But it really isn’t, and here is why

1. Obamacare is as much her brainchild as Obama’s. She ran on the individual
mandate in 2008 and has cheered Obamacare at every stage in the game

Obama-Hillary Debate - Individual Mandate - 2008

Rather
than only ask Republicans, maybe the press should start asking her what her
alternative to Obamacare is. She doesn’t think it’s working, does she?

2. More importantly, it is hard to see that there is a general election
constituency for Obama/Hillary style healthcare reform. Even the uninsured are
now skeptical, the
New York Times reports:

Fifty-three percent of the uninsured disapprove of the law, the poll found,
compared with 51 percent of those who have health coverage. A third of the
uninsured say the law will help them personally, but about the same number think
it will hurt them, with cost a leading concern.

The widespread skepticism, even among people who are supposed to benefit from
the law, underscores the political challenge facing the Obama administration as
it tries to persuade millions of Americans to enroll in coverage through new
online marketplaces, a crucial element of making the new law financially viable
for insurers.

Think about that. Not only do the people who weren’t supposed to be affected
now hollering about being lied to, but the people who never had insurance don’t
like what they are getting. Where are the “Yippee, Obamacare!” voters who
are going to carry her to the White House? Three cheers for the status quo!
(Sometimes “change” isn’t for the better, the Obama-swooning voters of 2008 now
learn.)

3. Each Obama foreign policy debacle, most especially Iran, sends reporters
scurrying back to consider what it was she was doing for four years. If things
are such a mess now, maybe she was a bad
Secretary of State. Just a thought.

4. Hillary Clinton in the abstract is always better than Hillary Clinton in
reality. Since she left the White House, and the prospect of her run has neared,
her approval has fallen from the mid-60′s to less
than 50 percent.

5. Early polls don’t mean much, but the notion that a Republican like New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could beat her in places like New Jersey, Virginia
and Iowa puts a dent in her cakewalk-to-the-White-House narrative.

6. There are plausible contenders. The Los
Angeles Times reports that California Gov. Jerry Brown won’t rule out a run,
and why should he? (“a household name, an impressive list of accomplishments in
the country’s most populous state — a state some once deemed ungovernable —
glowing national media coverage and a deep familiarity with the pitfalls and
rigors of a White House bid, having run three times before”). Sure he is 75
years old, but 75 is the new 65 and besides Hillary is 66. What is nine years
between bitter rivals? Former New Hampshire Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) — or one of the nineteen other women senators, or a
current Democratic governor like Andrew Cuomo could step in if she stumbles. The
notion that she is the only woman out there for Dems to pick is rather
silly.

7. The media already is desperate for a contested race and will pronounce
just about any recognizable Democrat who shows interest in a run to be
“formidable” and “not to be taken lightly.”

8. She is in a precarious spot now, open to attack but loathe to respond
personally (or through Bill) for fear of elevating the issue and/or legitimizing
the attacker. There is a lot of groundwork that can be laid while she collects
big speaking from corporations.

9. The big speaking fees from corporations, yes, are also a reminder to the
left that the Clintons have always been pro-business, middle-of-the-roaders. Do
they really have to settle yet again for someone cozy with investment bankers
and lobbyists?

10. Running for the “third Obama term” may not be an option. Obama’s collapse
may only encourage someone with no connection to his troubled presidency to step
forward.

Make no mistake: Hillary is the frontrunner. But it’s fair to say she’s more
vulnerable than a year ago with many more potential, serious liabilities.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Laying aside the inconvenient fact that presidential polls this far out from 2016 are meaningless, what’s the biggest news here? That Christie’s strong enough to now lead Her Majesty in a state where she, er, finished third in 2008? Or that Rand Paul, who’s supposed to be a niche candidate, is competitive with her despite her near universal name recognition?

Actually, the biggest news is that Iowans are lukewarm about Hillary. Every Republican polled here draws a chunk of don’t-knows when people are asked how they’d do as president, but nearly everyone has an opinion about Hillary. She does well — more than half (53/42) say she’d make a good chief exec — but Republicans like Christie and Paul must be benefiting from considerable “Not Hillary” sentiment to some extent. Beyond that, I think the biggest news is Jeb Bush. If he jumps in, he and Christie will battle to be crowned the establishment’s designated “centrist problem-solver.” You would think, given Bush’s own name recognition, that either the two would poll relatively evenly in Iowa or Bush would have a slight advantage. Nope.

More Republicans think Jeb would be a better president than Christie would, but Christie destroys him among independents and, at 33 percent, has a bigger share of the opposing party’s voters willing to vouch for him than any other candidate mentioned by Quinnipiac. (Hillary’s a distant second, with 19 percent of Republicans saying she’d make a good president.) At 31/45, Bush actually does quite a bit worse among indies than the supposedly unelectable Paul does. Maybe that’s his surname scaring people off or maybe it’s something else, but GOP donors will be keeping an eye on it.

The other wrinkle to Christie’s numbers is how well he does with traditionally Democratic groups. Quinnipiac didn’t split its numbers by race but it did split them by gender and age. Head to head with Hillary, Christie’s the only Republican who holds her to less than a 20-point lead among women. She leads him by 10 versus Paul by 21, Cruz by 23, and Bush by 24(!). The age data is even more interesting: Rand Paul does as well as Christie does against Hillary among voters age 18 to 29, but once you leave that group, he starts to tail off while Christie remains strong. Compare:

That’s something else GOP donors will be watching. It may be true that Paul’s views on civil liberties and the drug war play better with young adults than traditional Republican positions do, but what is he giving up among older voters by taking them? You would at least want him to win the 18 to 29 group going away to make it worth taking a chance on him. Not here, not yet.

One other tidbit: When asked if Ted Cruz would make a good president, voters overall split 28/42 and Republicans split 55/16. The latter number’s not bad, especially given how many voters haven’t formed an opinion yet, but that’s the second underwhelming poll from Iowafor him this week. Given how well he’s been received there, maybe it’s a simple matter of things taking off once he’s on the trail. Even now, his numbers are way better than Joe Biden’s: When asked if Diamond Joe would make a good president, voters split … 29/62, with even Democrats splitting just 55/33. Oof.

Monday, December 16, 2013

What difference does it make, Secretary Clinton? This is the difference that it makes. "Benghazi, Libya, has become training hub for Islamist fighters," by Nancy A. Youssef for McClatchy, December 12 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

BENGHAZI, Libya — Every week, about a dozen Syrians arrive at Benghazi’s airport for what’s described as insurgent training. When they fly out, they’re carrying fake Libyan passports, according to three officials familiar with the comings and goings of foreigners at the airport.

The accounts of the officials, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the topic, are more evidence that this city in Libya has become a regional hub for Islamist extremists seeking to hone their combat skills.

Fighters from Tunisia and Algeria also are thought to be training here, driving across Libya’s borders to reach Benghazi, the birthplace of the uprising that, with NATO’s help, toppled Moammar Gadhafi two years ago. But the Syrians’ routine arrival and departure by air indicates that the training process is better organized and financed than had been realized.

It also raises questions about the role of Libya’s homegrown militia, Ansar al Shariah, in the global jihadi movement. Ansar al Shariah has its roots in the anti-Gadhafi uprising and it’s thought to have participated in the attack last year on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Any effort to train al Qaida-linked fighters here is unlikely to have gone forward without the backing of Ansar al Shariah, experts in the organization say.

The Benghazi airport officials said that in the face of weak government forces and Ansar al Shariah supporters among their personnel, there’s little they can do to stop fighters from arriving or from leaving illegally, even though their fake passports are easily detected. By leaving on Libyan passports, they avoid legal requirements that they report their activities while they’re in the country, the airport officials told McClatchy.

“It is easier to leave Libya that way. They fly to Istanbul and sneak back into Syria,” one airport employee said. “They use the Libyan passport once.” The three airport officials said they saw anywhere from 10 to 15 fighters each week.

Airport authorities can’t stop them because they themselves fear the repercussions of confronting militants. As one employee explained, pointing to an immigration official: “He is with Ansar al Shariah.”

“There is nothing we can do to stop it,” a second official told McClatchy. “But everyone knows who they are.”

Libya’s minister of justice, Salah al Marghani, told McClatchy that the government is unaware of fighters coming to the country for training, but he acknowledged that Libya’s security situation would allow “such groups to move freely.”

“I would not be surprised if foreign fighters are involved like this. . . . We have a lot of challenges,” he said. “Thank you for letting me know so we can investigate this.”...

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Yes, prepare the kingdom for the coronation of the new monarch of the
moderates -- Chris Christie.

Chris Christie won big in New Jersey and now has his sights firmly set on the
White House.

He won in a liberal state with the backing of the Republican Party and
Chamber of Commerce, none of which he needed to defeat a weak Democrat with
virtually no party support.

It’s almost as if the Democrats wanted Christie to win.

At the same time the Republicans spent very little to help the conservative
Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia. And the Chamber of Commerce; how much did they spend
on the Cuccinelli campaign? Zip!

So why on earth would the Libs want Christie to win? Heck, Obama even called
to congratulate Christie, you know, because they are such good buddies. Frankly,
I’m half surprised Obama didn’t join Christie on the campaign trail.

And why are the Republicans so excited about Christie? Well, the Republicans
both fear and loathe conservatives much more than they dislike Democrats. They
are scared to death of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.

They see Cruz and Lee as hardliners. These two will not compromise away their
core beliefs, mostly because they have core beliefs, something completely
foreign to the moderate Republican politician or pundit. That and the Republican
leadership can’t “control” them. Cruz and Lee have this odd notion of working
for the people, not the party. Shocking!

As observant conservatives we find it easy to recognize those who frighten
the Democrats and who don’t. John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin were
perfect examples. Until they had to, the press and the Dems treated McCain, the
great aisle crosser, with respect. They still do. Palin, on the other hand, was
and is constantly savaged by the press, the Dems and the Republicans.

Democrats know that most American voters live their lives relatively
conservatively and can never allow a true conservative to relate to the public
or develop any traction with them. Thus they must demonize the conservative the
minute they sense any momentum.

And finally there’s Obama. Why the man-crush on Christie? It’s my opinion,
and I think others would agree, Obama can’t stand the Clintons. My guess is that
he doesn’t think they are true Marxist believers, especially Bill.

He figures Hillary will be the front-runner and the odds-on presidential
favorite. I’m sure he believes, as many inside the Beltway, that Christie will
be the Republican nominee.

I’d bet that the Obama’s would not be upset if Christie were to beat Hillary.
Obama, like us conservatives, understands that the progressive Christie will not
attempt to undo any of his major socialist programs.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Obama isn't the only Democrat who has had a difficult few weeks. The past month has also been particularly challenging for the woman who has all but declared her 2016 presidential campaign: Hillary Clinton. If this winter is any guide, to win the nomination Mrs. Clinton will have to master her two-step: sticking close to a president still beloved by the Democratic base—as she did this week, flying on Air Force One with Mr. Obama to South Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorial service—while distancing herself from his unpopular policies.

The former secretary of state knows that in order to win the Democratic nomination she must first secure the party's base—the steadfast liberal voters who deserted her during the 2008 primaries. Mrs. Clinton has already signaled her intention to hew closely to their priorities: In an August speech at the American Bar Association in San Francisco, she advocated for extending the Voting Rights Act, and last month in Los Angeles she spoke to a major gathering of Mexican-Americans about her support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Celebrating the arrival of 2009 in New York's Times Square. Associated Press

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton must separate herself politically from a president whose approval rating has plummeted (38% in the latest Quinnipiac poll) and whose policies could well wreck her chance to occupy the nation's highest office. If she fails to do this, Mrs. Clinton's inevitable identification with President Obama threatens to destroy any chance of winning over the critical group of independents that she lost in 2008.

Fortunately for Mrs. Clinton, she's got Bill. And the former president has already come to the rescue more than once.

Apparently without consulting the White House, President Clinton on Nov. 12 distanced himself and his wife from Mr. Obama's signature legislation, which remains deeply unpopular. Mr. Clinton told an interviewer that he favored amending the Affordable Care Actto allow people to keep health-care plans that the law was forcing them to surrender. Calling on Mr. Obama to "honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Mr. Clinton made it clear that the health-care law had to be revamped in order to survive politically.

The move accomplished two things. First, it provided political cover to the 39 House Democrats who voted for Rep. Fred Upton's legislation allowing insurance companies to continue to offer policies that had been canceled because of ObamaCare. Second, by turning around and explicitly endorsing ObamaCare and the president days later in a CNN Espanol interview, Mr. Clinton managed the delicate task of maintaining close ties and clear distance from the administration.

That isn't to say Mr. Clinton's intervention will be enough immunize his wife from criticism. Mrs. Clinton's advocacy for health-care reform in the first years of the Clinton presidency will almost certainly brand her as the "mother of ObamaCare," notwithstanding that her reforms were more limited than Mr. Obama's. But the popular perception is that Mrs. Clinton was the first advocate of national health insurance, and in the 2008 primary she, and not Mr. Obama, was the main advocate for the individual mandate.

Another major obstacle is Mrs. Clinton's foreign-policy record: She can point to no significant accomplishments as secretary of state. Now that her successor, John Kerry, has forged an interim agreement with Iran, good or bad, to limit its nuclear program, questions will inevitably be asked about why Mrs. Clinton failed to achieve anything on that front—or to strike a similar bargain with North Korea or make any progress with the Palestinians and Israelis.

Mrs. Clinton also still faces serious questions about the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. During the 2008 primary campaign, Mrs. Clinton said she was the candidate best equipped to answer the 3 a.m. emergency phone call. Americans will want to know how she answered that call in Libya.

Notwithstanding these challenges, Mrs. Clinton remains the consensus, odds-on favorite to win the 2016 Democratic nomination. There's unlikely to be a challenge from the left, since Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken herself out of the race—at least for the time being.

The general election is another matter. Polling released this week shows Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie with popular New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and at least one survey shows some erosion in support for Mrs. Clinton. In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Mr. Christie maintains the very slight 1% lead he held in November, with a 42%-41% advantage. In the McClatchy-Marist poll, Mrs. Clinton's advantage has dropped from 6% in July down a 48%-45% advantage. The polling message is clear: Against a Republican contender with broad popularity and appeal, Mrs. Clinton is vulnerable and would start such a campaign without a clear advantage.

Bill Clinton gets this political landscape. That's why he has systematically distanced himself, and by extension his wife, from a broad range of Mr. Obama's policies—not just health care.

Mr. Clinton has positioned the Clinton brand as being more hawkish than the president by advocating for intervention in Syria, despite the low level of public support for such an initiative. At an Institute for International Leadership event in June, Mr. Clinton said: "If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken is, 'Oh my god, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it.' You look like a total fool." Without naming Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton left no doubt who he meant.

In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, Bill Clinton said in an interview with Tom Brokaw that Mr. Obama should talk more about balancing the budget and deficit reduction. Mr. Clinton also backed the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan—which was created at Mr. Obama's behest but which he never implemented.

With the Obama administration's popularity eroding as the economy remains stagnant and ObamaCare appears likely to remain troubled for months to come, the artful dance the Clintons have begun will only become more elaborate as 2016 approaches.